| Popis: |
Montabone et al., 2015 and 2020, [1, 2] have developed an iterative, weighted, running mean methodology to grid the available retrievals of atmospheric column dust optical depth (CDOD) from multi-annual and multi-instrument spacecraft observations at Mars. The application of this methodology has produced daily gridded maps of CDOD from Martian Year (MY) 24 through 35, using Mars Global Surveyor/Thermal Emission Spectrometer and Mars Odyssey/Thermal Emission Imaging System nadir observations, as well as the estimates of this quantity from Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter/Mars Climate sounder (MRO/MCS) limb observations. Given the lack of dust observations at certain times and locations, the daily gridded maps have missing values at some grid points. Kriging spatial interpolation has been used to produce regular maps that are useful as multiannual dust scenarios for model simulations, and for the Mars Climate Database (MCD) statistics [3].We have now adapted this methodology to include CDOD retrievals from Emirates Mars Mission/Emirates Mars Infrared Spectrometer (EMM/EMIRS) nadir observations in MY 36 [4]. The specificity of EMIRS spatial and temporal coverage as well as the extended nature of its footprint are taken into account when carrying out the gridding. We will present a cross-comparison of maps obtained using only EMIRS retrievals and maps obtained using only MCS retrievals, in the attempt to understand what is the best approach to produce a MY 36 dust scenario that makes the best use of both instruments. We will particularly focus on the evolution of large-scale dust storms in MY 36.References: [1] Montabone, L., et al. (2015) Icarus 251, pp. 65-95, doi: 10.1016/j.icarus.2014.12.034 ; [2] Montabone, L., et al. (2020) J. Geophys. Res. - Planets, doi: 10.1029/2019JE006111 ; [3] http://www-mars.lmd.jussieu.fr (Publicly available dust gridded maps can be currently found up to MY 35 by clicking on the “climatologies of Martian atmospheric dust” link under “Martian dust Climatology”) ; [4] Smith, M.D., et al. (2022) Geophys. Res. Lett. 49, Issue 15, doi: 10.1029/2022GL09963 |
